Srecko Sostar

In a court of law, it is crucial to acknowledge that the term "blood transfusion" can also refer to fractionated blood. The responsibility of providing clarifications lies with the lawyers, but with the understanding of all parties involved. If an answer is provided without any need for clarification, it implies that no further action was required. To simplify. Joshua David was not at the Court, but spoke in front of the camera answering questions from journalist. He was speaking to listeners, many of whom were ordinary, averagely educated people. But regardless of their education, they would understand if JD explained to them that "freedom of conscience among JWs" is not unlimited, and that they must obey GBs orders or they will be excommunicated.

Your previous comment, which prompted my reaction at the time, reminded me of GB member GJ when he stated before the ARC that JWs are so capable of reading the Bible and seeing the difference whether GB is teaching them correctly or not. It means that ordinary JW people are so spiritually mature and intellectually capable of distinguishing "truth from lies" that they don't really need GB as "channel and source of interpretations" . If the student is able to reason better than the teacher then why all this "theocratic hierarchy" where only a few (elders) are "trained to use the Word correctly"? If, according to GJ, JW members are able to discern some teaching, based on reading the Bible, then that's it. Oh, it's terrible what JW clergy do with followers.

Looks like I confused something in googling. Sorry.

Today, for the first time, I saw the true meaning of this passage from Acts. All the time I was a JW I thought that line, probably due to the influence of WTJWorg, meant that God is impartial in the context of accepting people to Christianity regardless of background. However, there was something hidden here that you have brilliantly revealed. Cornelius or any other individual outside of Judaism could have been accepted by God outside of the religio-legal system given through Moses. However, we have one problem regarding Cornelius. WTJWorg refers to him as a "Jewish Proselyte" in its publications. Some other sources say that he was not a proselyte. That detail would be important to more easily determine its/his position with regard to the diet we are talking about.

The use of the "theocratic war" method falls under the INSTRUCTION that comes from the GB. The decision as to whether to use it is not a suggestion left to so called individual "conscience".

GB says to people; read the Bible with the help of our publications and you will see how Jesus trust us.

Glossary Misrepresentation An untrue statement of fact or law made by Party A (or its agent) to Party B, which induces Party B to enter a contract with Party A thereby causing Party B loss. An action for misrepresentation can be brought in respect of a misrepresentation of fact or law. There are three types of misrepresentation: Fraudulent misrepresentation: where a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth. Negligent misrepresentation: a representation made carelessly and in breach of duty owed by Party A to Party B to take reasonable care that the representation is accurate. If no "special relationship" exists, there may be a misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 where a statement is made carelessly or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth. Innocent misrepresentation: a representation that is neither fraudulent nor negligent. The remedies for misrepresentation are rescission and/or damages. For fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, the claimant may claim rescission and damages. For innocent misrepresentation, the court has a discretion to award damages in lieu of rescission; the court cannot award both (see section 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967). For more information, see Practice note, Misrepresentation and Practice note, Damages for misrepresentation: an overview. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-107-6848?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true Public materials that are readily available and visible to any JW or non-JW (WTJWorg's official digital content website) when viewed with prior knowledge of the Organization, exhibit all of these elements listed in the definition of "misrepresentation." Once again briefly. JW brother Joshua clearly used the term "blood transfusion". He should know about all those blood finesse. So, in my opinion, he deliberately omitted to explain in detail what WTJWorg means by the term "blood transfusion", what is blood and what is not blood according to the GB interpretation. He had all the time in the world to explain it to reporters and listeners. Since he did not do it in the clear and only correct way (the bare truth), it means that he DECEIVED (intentionally) the public when he spoke about the freedom of decision of JW members about "blood issue". JW lawyers and JW members do a similar thing in many courts when they give written or oral testimony in which they use "theoretical warfare" methods. About "Shepherd" book. If that book is so "public", conduct a member survey and ask how many have read the book (JW men, women and children).

Excellent point. It turns out that such a prophecy is of importance only to the one who uttered it, when he sees the fruits of its fulfillment.

Good or bad, that's what everyone does.

Unfortunately, this is not possible! The first reason that makes it impossible is the "non-transparency" of the so-called theocratic system as run by WTJWorg. At any level of the hierarchy from how material resources are used, how research papers are done and the selection of material for publication, court cases, out-of-court settlements, etc., it is clear that the individual JW has no insight into all of this. Nor could she/he "understand" it all or most of all, due to the specifics of each of the activities involved in running such a massive organization. Who have enough time for that? The second reason. As far as the doctrines and related events are concerned, not a single JW is familiar with the complete history of the organization. This requires deep knowledge of things, theoretical knowledge and long-term experiential knowledge through the practice of one's own and other people's lives. So how could any JW possibly "warn" a potential new follower about possible/certain risks. The third reason. The organization is not naive to discover its weaknesses, mistakes, dubious practices and disastrous consequences of the policies it implements today or has implemented in the past.

Do you mean to say that every candidate should read, among other things, a secret book for elders eyes only? And read the "small print" at the bottom of the "contract"?

"Love your neighbor as yourself." - by Jesus Yes, first I have to love myself. Yes, first I have to agree with myself. - by ....

Please, it's nonsense. GB says they proves own teachings, supposedly, on the basis of the Bible and verse/s in the Bible or so called "biblical context". After some time, thye refutes these teachings on the basis of the same or some other biblical passages. What is the statement even supposed to mean - that someone is against what is "biblical"? GB lives in contradictions. Joshua David, JW PR in India, stated that JWs are guided by their conscience whether or not they want to accept a blood transfusion, but the Shepard book outlines the procedure that JW elders should take if someone has received a blood transfusion. Deceiving the public. There is no freedom of choice because members are sanctioned if they take blood. "Biblical"? haha

The Bible Students were not completely sure what would happen. They were convinced that it would not result in a burning up of the earth and a blotting out of human life. Rather, they knew it would mark a significant point in regard to divine rulership. At first, they thought that by that date the Kingdom of God would have obtained full, universal control. When that did not occur, their confidence in the Bible prophecies that marked the date did not waver. They concluded that, instead, the date had marked only a starting point as to Kingdom rule. Similarly, they also first thought that global troubles culminating in anarchy (which they understood would be associated with the war of “the great day of God the Almighty”) would precede that date. (Rev. 16:14) But then, ten years before 1914, the Watch Tower suggested that worldwide turmoil that would result in the annihilating of human institutions would come right after the end of the Gentile Times. https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/Jehovahs-Witnesses-Proclaimers-of-Gods-Kingdom/Gaining-Accurate-Knowledge-of-Gods-Word-and-Applying-It/Growing-in-Accurate-Knowledge-of-the-Truth/

Quote from Proclaimers book: The Bible Students were not completely sure what would happen. They were convinced that it would not result in a burning up of the earth and a blotting out of human life. Rather, they knew it would mark a significant point in regard to divine rulership. At first, they thought that by that date the Kingdom of God would have obtained full, universal control. When that did not occur, their confidence in the Bible prophecies that marked the date did not waver. They concluded that, instead, the date had marked only a starting point as to Kingdom rule. Similarly, they also first thought that global troubles culminating in anarchy (which they understood would be associated with the war of “the great day of God the Almighty”) would precede that date. (Rev. 16:14) But then, ten years before 1914, the Watch Tower suggested that worldwide turmoil that would result in the annihilating of human institutions would come right after the end of the Gentile Times. They expected the year 1914 to mark a significant turning point for Jerusalem, since the prophecy had said that ‘Jerusalem would be trodden down’ until the Gentile Times were fulfilled. When they saw 1914 drawing close and yet they had not died as humans and been ‘caught up in the clouds’ to meet the Lord—in harmony with earlier expectations—they earnestly hoped that their change might take place at the end of the Gentile Times.—1 Thess. 4:17. As the years passed and they examined and reexamined the Scriptures, their faith in the prophecies remained strong, and they did not hold back from stating what they expected to occur. With varying degrees of success, they endeavored to avoid being dogmatic about details not directly stated in the Scriptures. Did the “Alarm Clock” Go Off Too Soon? Great turmoil certainly burst forth upon the world in 1914 with the outbreak of World War I, which for many years was called simply the Great War, but it did not immediately lead to an overthrow of all existing human rulerships. As events in connection with Palestine developed following 1914, the Bible Students thought they saw evidence of significant changes for Israel. But months and then years passed, and the Bible Students did not receive their heavenly reward as they had anticipated. How did they react to that? The Watch Tower of February 1, 1916, specifically drew attention to October 1, 1914, and then said: “This was the last point of time that Bible chronology pointed out to us as relating to the Church’s experiences. Did the Lord tell us that we would be taken [to heaven] there? No. What did He say? His Word and the fulfil[l]ments of prophecy seemed to point unmistakably that this date marked the end of the Gentile Times. We inferred from this that the Church’s ‘change’ would take place on or before that date. But God did not tell us that it would be so. He permitted us to draw that inference; and we believe that it has proven to be a necessary test upon God’s dear saints everywhere.” But did these developments prove that their glorious hope had been in vain? No. It simply meant that not everything was taking place as soon as they had expected. Several years before 1914, Russell had written: “Chronology (time prophecies in general) was evidently not intended to give God’s people accurate chronological information all the way down the path of the centuries. Evidently it is intended more to serve as an alarm clock to awaken and energize the Lord’s people at the proper time. . . . https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/Jehovahs-Witnesses-Proclaimers-of-Gods-Kingdom/Gaining-Accurate-Knowledge-of-Gods-Word-and-Applying-It/Growing-in-Accurate-Knowledge-of-the-Truth/ The same principle used by Russell was continued by JW. Expectations and proving that expectations are based on the Bible and then changing doctrine. The same pattern of behavior. Each new JW generation lives in a state of denial of what their predecessors did and believed and said.

Maybe Wikipedia can help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1914

Barbour and Russell produced a connection between the two dates. They dealt with chronology and prophecies and reached the conclusions of the time. I don't deal with it anymore since I left the JWs. Please consult the book "Proclaimers" and other publications of WTJWorg which produced tons of material on the subject, 1914. It was normal for Bible students to expect Armageddon in 1914. I don't understand what you mean. JWs today claim that BS is their forerunner. I can believe that and I don't have to believe it. ??

Sorry. If the Organization believes in itself, and if its believers believe in the Organization as the only true one, then any comparison with other organizations that are not true is meaningless. What good is it for an honest and moral man to compare himself with fraudsters and scoundrels, and then this is his confirmation that he is on the right path. How can you forget that WTJWorg is constantly changing its doctrines and that previous "truths" have actually become false teachings. Unfortunately, WTJWorg has not been spared from its sins regarding the treatment of victims of pedophilia, and in this it is completely similar to the Catholic Church, which also covers up these atrocities. It is not entirely fair to highlight the bad deeds of another religion while at the same time failing to reveal the bad deeds of one's own religion. Both sides have no excuses.

The book Proclaimers talks about it. But who reads it today? Quote: In 1876, when Russell had first read a copy of Herald of the Morning, he had learned that there was another group who then believed that Christ’s return would be invisible and who associated that return with blessings for all families of the earth. From Mr. Barbour, editor of that publication, Russell also came to be persuaded that Christ’s invisible presence had begun in 1874. * Attention was later drawn to this by the subtitle “Herald of Christ’s Presence,” which appeared on the cover of Zion’s Watch Tower. So 40 years should have passed between the "invisible presence" and Armageddon, according to their calculation. (40 is a biblical number so they must have liked how it went together). But, I think the years kept moving in anticipation of the second coming of Jesus. I don't remember if it was Russell or someone before him who came up with the "invisible presence" idea. And I don't know if I can completely believe every statement and description of events from the book Proclaimers. Planting testimony and moving events is a specialty of some at WTJWorg. We read in book also this. Quote: At first, they thought that by that date the Kingdom of God would have obtained full, universal control. When that did not occur, their confidence in the Bible prophecies that marked the date did not waver. They concluded that, instead, the date had marked only a starting point as to Kingdom rule. Similarly, they also first thought that global troubles culminating in anarchy (which they understood would be associated with the war of “the great day of God the Almighty”) would precede that date. (Rev. 16:14) But then, ten years before 1914, the Watch Tower suggested that worldwide turmoil that would result in the annihilating of human institutions would come right after the end of the Gentile Times. If the book (Proclaiemrs) is to be believed, then this change in predictions is reminiscent of this year's Annual Meeting with "new knowledge" about events that began, according to the old explanation, but still did not begin, according to the new explanation. Pure confusion or, in a word, Babylon. This text in brackets is not part of the original, it was already added to WTJWorg in that 1993 brochure you quoted. So another manipulation. The JWs came about after one of the schisms within the Bible Students. I didn't notice this until today. The title of the chapter is disastrous for GB. Their (GB) resistance to the term "inspired" is belied by this subtitle, as they unwittingly admit that the "truths" (they state several in that chapter) about 1914 are "inspired". So, they completely denied themselves, claiming that they came to the "truth" through "guided by HS" and through "study" and through "guidance of angels". Chapter titled “Identifying God-Inspired Truth”

WTJWorg refers to the only thing with which/what they prove their legitimacy in "managing God's Word". It is the year 1919, the year when "Jesus chose them" because they were the only ones on planet Earth who "understood the Bible correctly". But let JWs today not get carried away with the idea of how they were, JWs. No it was the Bible Students movement, established in 1881 as ZWTTS and incorporated few years latter in the WTBTS with CT Russell as its president and his wife Maria as secretary. It was to them that God gave authority, not to the JWs under Rutherford. It is important from the point of view of when the original legality was established, and how legal and how possible it is to inherit this type of legality and establishment. Every new man and every new body that is allowed to manage and lead "Jesus' organization", should be appointed, not by the man before him, but by Jesus again "directly". Theoretically speaking. You will say that it is unnecessary to conclude that way, because in the first century the practice of "laying hands" was carried out by the apostles on the new elders. Yes, but those apostles could prove their legitimacy because they were miracle workers. Today's "apostles" have nothing to prove their position with, except their own claims about themselves. But this was only mentioned in passing. What is extremely important to me comes from the following: If the body that Jesus chose in 1919 says what is the "truth" and "correct interpretation" of the Bible, then it is absurd that the new body later refutes the previous doctrine. This means that Jesus is disunited. Done. WTJWorg has nothing more to ask for on the scene, because they have continued to prove to this day how much disunity they generated in the name of Jesus. For each stated interpretation, they use Jesus as their Protector and Source of doctrine. After some time, they renounce that Jesus and refer to the new Jesus during a new interpretation. This can only happen in the "world of madmen".

Pardon my rudeness, but this reminds me of GB jargon when they say; "Jesus meant"...this or that, so they justify their new doctrine that way. The PR representative spoke very calmly and knew what to say because he had prepared well. He was not influenced by emotions, but calmly answered the questions. That's why he was appointed to that role.

Sorry, the term "whole blood" does not exist in the Bible. The term "main blood components" and the term "blood fractions" do not exist in the Bible. Such terminology cannot be used to prove some religious doctrine, nor can it be attributed to God that by giving a "command" He predicted that in the future people would engage in blood transfusions or that people would create synthetic blood and inject it into veins instead of human blood. That would be speculation. Also speculation and juggling is what WTJWorg does with their blood transfusion theories, changing them like the sheets in a household are changed every week. The Bible does not support, in any text, any of the existing WTJWorg doctrine regarding what is acceptable, what is not acceptable, and what is a personal choice regarding blood. These are mere guesses and instructions from GB and their lawyers. A change of viewpoint among former members is no reason not to reexamine existing doctrine from current members. The change of doctrine becomes actually a necessity and a "good habit" that the Organization applies more and more as something inevitable and praiseworthy.

Which "biblical rule", interpreted through the practice of WTJWorg, can cause more harm to JW members? The "blood rule" or "two witnesses rule"? I am not a supporter of blood transfusions for medical reasons. But on the other hand, every medicine or method of treatment has its own dangers.

Biblical terminology uses the explanation that "blood represents life." Literal blood has symbolism and it's the same as saying "life flows in our veins", instead of the word blood. According to the Bible, life is priceless, precious and should be preserved even under the most difficult circumstances. That is why JWs do not look favorably on someone who is in severe pain or even has an incurable disease, who wants to resort to "suicide" as a way out of their condition. If life is so important, then I would agree with the opinion that the symbol itself, which is represented by the concept of blood, should not have a higher place than what it represents, which is precisely life. Life is more important than a symbol. Let's not get into the controversy of how people are ready to give their lives for ideals and symbols, as an argument for rejecting blood. Ideology is one thing, biology is another. Finally, WTJWorg itself throughout its history has not demonstrated a clear understanding of the commandment to "abstain from eating blood." That is why JWs today have a loaded history/legacy of doctrinal errors. How can the leading people in WTJWorg be trusted, on the issue of blood, when they are unable to clearly define the theology on many other issues?

The crime of that former JW deserves full condemnation and the most severe punishment. I hope that the court will punish him severely if he is guilty. Lives are irretrievably lost, the wounded may live hard with the consequences, and everyone else will have permanent trauma. It's a tragedy.